Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00116)

Dear Marie,
Thanks for your comments, in my opinion the Mahatma Letters is the 
best and most interesting "waste of ink" I've ever read .lol
I was fortunate in that I did a course in the Mahatma letters which I 
suppose made it more digestable and gave the historical context which 
helps, reading it from cover to cover may not be the best way to get 
into it.

Have you read the "devachan letter" this is full of superb teachings.
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-16.htm


Regarding my membership refusal from the society last year I was told 
in a letter from the National EC in Sydney :

"As a result of our deliberations, the members of the national 
Executive Committee unanimously decided not to accept your 
application to rejoin at this time.

 This decision was not taken lightly. I will ask Perth B ranch to 
refund your fees. 
However, we would strongly encourage you to attend Perth B ranch in 
order to build up an increasingly healthy, non aggressive 
relationship based on courtesy and respect.

We also expect the members and the Executive Committee of the Branch 
to reciprocate this behaviour in a brotherly way. 
We acknowledge and appreciate that you are a serious student of the 
teachings of the Mahatmas.
  
We respect your recently expressed views about the TS. We also invite 
you to reapply for membership of Perth Branch in 12 months time, if 
you find that you have a genuine compatibility with the ethos, 
official statements and b road scope of the teachings of the TS with 
its headquarters at Adyar." 

The implication here was that I had been "aggressive" & "unhealthy" 
and not shown courtesy and respect.

I haven't challenged this decision with Mrs Burnier or taken it any 
further as the decision was a unanimous one from Australian 
headquarters, I felt it was pointless in taking it any further.

I agree with you that theos-talk as a non partisan group is an 
excellent website that has enabled discussion of these issues in a 
free and open manner, thanks to Eldon for maintaining it and to all 
the contributors, its great, it keeps you on your toes and even if 
buttons get pushed from time to time I think is a great venue.

Perhaps getting your buttons pushed is not such a bad thing as it can 
show us where our attachments may be.

I suppose the way I have voiced my protest has been here at theos-
talk in the hope that the issues maybe more widely known and 
discussed although I am aware that little of this actually is known 
by members, however you can only do so much.

Best Wishes 
Perry





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MarieMAJ41@... wrote:
>
>  Hi Perry and All
>  
> Yes, good discussion on this and other topics. But, when you were 
disallowed membership in Adyar, did you challenge that? Did you write 
to India and to Rhada Burnier? Or did you simply accept their 
partisan point of view? I am not saying that you walked away Perry, I 
am merely asking the question. What I like about membership in this 
forum is that I know that I have options, I can belong to other 
theosophical groups and societies, or to none at all, and still be a 
person seeking truth, and still call myself a theosophist. Whether I 
will be a Theosophist, I cannot know.
>  
> I am currently reading the "Mahatma Letters to AP Sinnet", and I 
have had the thought lately that the Masters were very verbose, and 
said very little in actual concrete information, IMO. It seems to me 
that they wasted a lot of ink and paper, and a lot of energy writing 
all that to AP Sinnet and to Hume. They not only wasted their 
resources, but used their chelas' resources and energy as well. And 
all to almost naught it seems to me. The controversies arising out of 
whether this or that person was in actual contact with the masters is 
still going on, and while it goes on, very little in the way of 
preparation of the mind, will and intuition is being accomplished. 
Very little development of the manas and the masses. We are still 
going either to heaven and hell or to devachan or avitchi. So what 
has been accomplished?
>  
> Marie
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: plcoles1@...
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 7:11 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Should students be concerned about Pseudo-
Theosophy?
> 
> 
> Hi All, Very Good discussion! 
> Back in the JW's (Jehovah's Witnesses) they always used to brag 
about 
> how `united' and "in agreement" they were as a group, however what 
> this really translated into was mere conformity of opinion and 
action.
> 
> So a question I would ask is, is conflict always necessarily 
> destructive, given that sometimes what is called `peace' 
and 'unity' 
> is really only a manifestation of conformity and stagnation?
> 
> My opinions on Bishop Leadbeater are not those of others, however I 
> don't expect or insist on others sharing my opinion, what I do 
insist 
> on in a free society is the right to hold, voice, challenge and 
share 
> an opinion.
> 
> That opinion can likewise also be challenged pulled apart, 
dissected 
> or explored more deeply.
> 
> My original issue with the TS was why is this right and freedom 
> apparently not allowed in official Adyar Society publications when 
> it comes to valid criticism of Bishop Leadbeater?
> 
> Why was I disallowed membership from the society for my comments 
here 
> on theos-talk, if it is a society that fearlessly holds to freedom 
of 
> thought and opinion? 
> 
> If rigorous debates are so destructive to humanity perhaps 
> universities should be closed down for the betterment of humanity 
and 
> instead allow all concepts and ideas to remain unchallenged in 
order 
> not to upset people who hold to those ideas?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Perry
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Adelasie, Bruce and all
> > 
> > Adelasie, thank you for your well-intended advice and for your 
> > positive evaluation of my sincerity of search. The personality 
> always 
> > enjoys support and reinforcement from one presumably superior in 
> > knowledge and wisdom, particularly where spiritual path matters 
are 
> > concerned.
> > 
> > Once again for me, and I trust not only for me, you have so 
> > eloquently described one aspect of our Theosophical teachings. 
> > Whenever I hear words such as "impersonal", "stepping aside" 
> > and "moving away" I am filled with a sense of expansion and 
almost 
> > freedom. They coincide beautifully with Theosophy's spiritual 
path 
> > principles of desirelessness, non-attachment, non-identification 
> and 
> > non-expectation so profoundly elaborated in the three fragments 
of 
> > The Voice of the Silence, Madame Blavatsky's last book, and one 
> which 
> > for me, deserves lifetimes of study, reflection and especially 
> > practice.
> > 
> > Moreover, the impersonal approach you suggest reminds me of the 
> > dilemma Arjuna faced at Kurukshetra when confronting his enemies 
on 
> > the battlefield. Not only did they include his kinfolk but his 
> first 
> > guru Dronacharya, who taught him archery during childhood. 
Krishna 
> > helps Arjuna to see clearly his impersonal, moral duty or dharma 
> and 
> > to proceed without attachments or expectations of any kind.
> > 
> > Therefore, where struggling mortals such as myself are concerned 
> and 
> > when considering the impersonal approach, I wonder whether it is 
> > possible for us to be entirely impersonal and moreover whether 
what 
> > we assume to be "impersonal" can become such a dogma as to 
preclude 
> > us from right action? Could there ever be a danger that our 
worthy 
> > desire for the high moral ground, where we presume ourselves to 
> > be "impersonal", might actually be blinding us from our 
otherwise, 
> > obvious and appropriate duty?
> > 
> > Perhaps Taoist philosophy holds some clues. In that tradition, 
> > sometimes we need leave well alone, other times we need bend like 
a 
> > sapling whilst on other occasions we need stand forth and deliver.
> > The encouraging component of this theosophical tradition for me 
is 
> > that we are assured that each of these modalities can be 
practiced 
> > with detachment from desire, identification and expectation.
> > 
> > This reminds me of the story from another tradition, where a 
> Samurai 
> > was employed to seek out and execute a criminal. Just as he was 
> about 
> > to dispense justice the criminal spat in his face. The Samurai 
> > immediately sheathed his sword and withdrew. One of the morals of 
> the 
> > story, for those who may not be familiar, is that right action 
can 
> > only be where personal ego is not. When the Samurai was spat 
upon, 
> he 
> > recognised his personality experiencing anger which would have 
> turned 
> > his action into a personal and separative act. He therefore 
refused 
> > to act from these motivations and withdrew. 
> > 
> > With reference to the subject at hand, the question arises then, 
> can 
> > we approach the issues surrounding Bishop Leadbeater with these 
> > impersonal qualities? Or must we avoid them at all costs for fear 
> of 
> > acting in a personal, separative manner? 
> > 
> > Bruce, you write, "â?¦Leadbeater has provided sufficient cause 
> through 
> > this statement
> > alone to be officially removed from the Movement and ignored 
> > hereafter.
> > Besant too, on this statement alone, shows a gross ignorance of 
the
> > Theosophical Cause and must therefore be treated to a similar 
fate."
> > 
> > Unfortunately, as is apparent throughout the theosophical world, 
> for 
> > many students Bishop Leadbeater and Dr Besant's writings and 
> actions 
> > have not provided sufficient cause for the abovementioned fate to 
> > occur.
> > If these and innumerable other examples have not borne fruit, how 
> are 
> > we then to proceed? 
> > 
> > If we discover our child's teacher to be lying to them or 
seriously 
> > misrepresenting information, should we not act, or should we 
> refrain 
> > through fear of not acting impersonally?
> > Moreover, where this teacher, even if dead, continues to have 
great 
> > influence on students via his teachings, do we not have a moral 
> > obligation to warn present and future students of this fact?
> > 
> > Bruce, you further write, "Adelaise is correct. We do not have to
> > agitate elementals by going into stories, supported or not, of a 
> > sordid
> > pastâ?¦"
> > 
> > Firstly, where this teacher has demonstrated sexual deviance, 
> should 
> > this not be considered as at least part of the totality of 
> assessment 
> > concerning the validity and integrity of his teachings?
> > For me, the only reason to mention Bishop Leadbeater's sexual 
> > proclivities would be for students to more accurately assess the 
> > character of one claiming to be in direct contact with none other 
> > than the "Supreme Director of the World" along with stated 
personal 
> > relationships with Mahatmas. This of course would hopefully cause 
> > students and ourselves to initially beg the question as to 
whether 
> > these August figures might indeed choose to be in contact with 
such 
> a 
> > character or whether they and their teachings are largely 
> unconnected 
> > with him.
> > 
> > Secondly Bruce, regarding your concern about the agitation of 
> > elementals. Elementals can be constructive as well as 
destructive. 
> > From the Mahatmas we hear "Because every thought of man upon 
being 
> > evolved passes into the inner world and becomes an active entity 
by 
> > associating itself â?" coalescing, we might term it â?" with an 
> > elemental; that is to say with one of the semi-intelligent forces 
> of 
> > the kingdoms. It survives as an active intelligence, a creature 
of 
> > the mind's begetting, for a longer or shorter period 
proportionate 
> > with the original intensity of the cerebral action which 
generated 
> > it. Thus, a good thought is perpetuated as an active beneficent 
> > power; an evil one as a maleficent demon." Mahatma Letters to 
A.P. 
> > Sinnett
> > 
> > From this we can deduce perhaps that by encouraging and promoting 
a 
> > full assessment of Bishop Leadbeater, and anyone else's teachings 
> and 
> > character, for the impersonal, detached motivation and purpose of 
> > eliciting Truth, or at the very least, eliminating falsehood, we 
> will 
> > generate an active, beneficent force. 
> > Not to so do, would seem to effectively maintain and promote 
> > the "maleficent demon(s)".
> > As Madame Blavatsky writes in the Voice of the Silence, "If thou 
> art 
> > taught that sin is born of action and bliss of absolute inaction, 
> > then tell them that they err". 
> > 
> > Moreover, to do otherwise for fear of acting personally not only 
> > supports the energies and elementals of fear but would perhaps be 
> an 
> > obviation of our responsibility towards fellow seekers after 
Truth.
> > 
> > Adelasie, from the above rationale, might your statement "When we
> > resist evil, we give it strength" perhaps only apply where we are 
> > attached to our personality desires, emotions and expectations of 
> > outcome? Might not a detached, selfless concern for fellow 
seekers 
> > disempower this "strength" and in fact, empower the beneficent 
> > forces? 
> > 
> > For me, a fluid, non-dogmatic, conscious state of awareness and 
> > awakeness in each moment within our heart and mind might be the 
> place 
> > from where to choose to act, or "not to act" for the good of all. 
> > After all, whichever we decide, action or "inaction" it is always 
> an 
> > action. 
> > It seems left only for us to choose which.
> > 
> > Kind regards
> > Nigel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "adelasie" <adelasie@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Nigel, 
> > > 
> > > I apologize for not reading all your postings on this matter. I 
> > > picked the thread up in mid stream as it were. You are 
obviously 
> > very 
> > > sincere in your quest for truth, and your past experience seems 
> to 
> > > have given you motive for trying to protect others from 
mistakes 
> > you 
> > > may have made or might have made. It might be a good idea to 
> > consider 
> > > the impersonal view in this matter. Stepping aside from the 
> > question 
> > > of what is good for this or that individual student (which we 
may 
> > or 
> > > may not know anything about at all), we can sometimes gain 
> > > perspective by moving away from a position of personal 
> involvement 
> > > and viewing the situation from the position of impersonal 
forces. 
> > > Ultimately this is the only way to understand anything. When we 
> > > resist evil, we give it strength. The Disintegrator, the force 
of 
> > > separation, is the enemy, the source of evil for the human 
race. 
> > This 
> > > disentegrating force dwells in all levels of manifestation. We 
> deal 
> > > wilth it all the time. All that tends toward separation and 
> > disunity 
> > > is contrary to the successful trend of human evolution. When 
we, 
> as 
> > > students and/or teachers, are faced with a dilemma, we can gain 
> > > perspective by asking ourselves, "Am I working for unity, or 
for 
> > > separation? Will what I say and do tend to unite, or to 
> separate?" 
> > > Honest self-evaluation will give us the answer, and, according 
to 
> > > what we aspire to, we may proceed, or we may adjust our course. 
> If 
> > we 
> > > discover that we are generating resistance to some negative 
> aspect 
> > of 
> > > human experience, vibrating one pole of nature, so to speak, 
and 
> > > thereby energizing its opposite pole, which is often the very 
> thing 
> > > we thing we are fighting against, we may see that we are 
actually 
> > > working at cross purposes and may even be "working for the 
> enemy," 
> > > without even knowing it. 
> > > 
> > > These thoughts are offered in a general sense. There is no 
desire 
> > to 
> > > accuse or blame. Only you have the right to decide the right 
> course 
> > > for yourself. Ultimately all we can do for each other is 
> encourage 
> > > and support. A lot depends upon our daily thoughts, words, and 
> > deeds, 
> > > and the best teaching we can do for each other and for the 
world 
> is 
> > > by example, every day in every way.
> > > 
> > > Adelasie
> > > On 4 Mar 2007 at 5:47, nhcareyta wrote:
> > > 
> > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "adelasie" <adelasie@> 
wrote:
> > > > Dear Adelasie and all who might wish to participate in this 
> > discussion
> > > > 
> > > > Adelasie, thank you for this ongoing, interesting dialogue, 
> > thereby 
> > > > providing an opportunity for these issues to be further 
aired. 
> I 
> > have 
> > > > had conversations on these matters with many people over a 
> number 
> > of 
> > > > years and it's always refreshing when participants are 
willing 
> to 
> > > > thoroughly investigate them instead of taking a defensive or 
> > > > protectionist position. In this manner each can learn from 
the 
> > other 
> > > > in an atmosphere of mutual respect. So, thank you again.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
>  
> 
______________________________________________________________________
__
> AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's 
free from AOL at AOL.com.
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>